Camelot

Beautiful music and strong performances from Richard Harris and Vanessa Redgrave, however they are not singers and it hurts the picture mightily, leaving you wondering how much better it could have been with Richard Burton, Robert Goulet and especially Julie Andrews. True Burton wasn't a singer either using the talk singing method that Rex Harrison employed on My Fair Lady so Harris' replacement isn't as glaring as Redgrave/Andrews or Nero/Goulet. Where the picture really runs into problems through is the lumbering pace set by director Logan. A fine director of drama but with no skill at setting the right tone for a musical although that didn't stop the studios from handing him several throughout the years ending with the disaster of Paint Your Wagon. Some of the costumes are truly amazing and justly famous but this can be a trial to sit through.

I'm so used to demolishing contemporary productions and writing negative reviews that I often forget that that there are positive elements in some of the worst of films, and some well meant efforts in films that tried. So it is with the 1967 production of "Camelot" staring a plethora of names.

The film is an adaptation of the stage play of the same name, which itself is an adaptation of "The Man Who Would be King", a then contemporary retelling of the Arthurian legend as it had become interpreted by Hollywood and high brow publishers.

There's a lot of pageantry and production value injected and infused into this film. Everything from unearthing portions near the castle (the same used for "El Cid") to creating elegant armor highlighted with filigree and elaborate detail. The costumes, the sets, and emoting by the actors themselves falls into the "put best foot forward" category. Everything here is well meant. And to this end it is an entertaining film in its own right.

But it does fall flat here and there. The film was a business venture, like all films, but despite the resources allocated to the project, the production feels marginally rushed. The Broadway production with Julie Andrews and Richard Burton had made its mark a few years before, and the film was attempting to revitalize the waning coat tail interest in that production.

And that's just how the film feels; a somewhat rushed effort that was spared no expense to bring the fantasy world of Arthur, his castle "Camelot", queen, knights and all the rest. The clues are subtle, but there. The camera work is respectable, but not well defined nor planned out for any choreography staged. The pans and dolly shots are rough and unscheduled, or rough. Little pre-planning went into the shot setups. Zooms combined with dolly shots are mixed in with wide masters, giving the film the feel of being cobbled as opposed to created. The shots convey a "we need to shoot this quickly" feel, and it shows.

The art direction is interesting, but the technology of the time and emphasis on realistic colors during that period in commercial film making hold back a better production. The fact that other big names were brought in to pinch hit for the original Broadway cast that had established the play, again speaks volumes as to the kind of care that went into this film.

This isn't to say that the film is bad, but it could have been more. During this period in commercial film making name actors carried an enormous weight in marketing. They were truly "stars" during this time, as opposed to popular tabloid names akin to an adult version of high- school. Ergo name actors, or those aspiring to the such, were given A- productions, or, more correctly, placed in productions aspiring to be A- material. In short, people were hoping for Andrew, Burton and Goulet, but got Harris and company instead.

The musical numbers, as can be expected from a filmic translation of a Broadway play, are altered. The new takes on the old rifts are hit and miss; some are more successful than others. Yet again we get a sort of rough or unrefined feel from the musical numbers because of the haste in production. Again, respectable, but still unrefined in spite of the effort given.

I'm not one for remakes. I truly am not. But this one might be an interesting project to recreate, properly this time, with a little more care, and a little more time.

Not a great film, but decent entertainment. A snapshot of late 60s and early 70's commercial film making.

There is a great deal of misinformation on this blog concerning Camelot (1967), the film adaptation of the legendary Broadway hit. First, Producer Jack L. Warner had asked stage stars Richard Burton and Julie Andrews to reprise their roles as King Arthur and Queen Guinevere. Both refused. At the time, Burton was co-starring with then wife Elizabeth Taylor in a succession of films (The Taming of the Shew, Faustus, Boom!). Andrews was interested until she was told Burton had refused. She also had a commitment to honor her second picture to 20th Century-Fox (the first was the wildly successful Sound of Music; the second the ill-fated Star!). She did not have the best working relationship with Richard Harris, with whom she had recently co-starred with in the epic Hawaii. Harris hated her in kind.

Camelot did not achieve its legendary hit status until after its director, Moss Hart, had overhauled the musical play long after it had been running. He had suffered a heart attack during the out-of-town tryouts. When the play opened on Broadway in late 1960, the critics were less than kind. While they liked Burton, Andrews & the music, they disliked the second act, when Camelot is under siege by Arthur's illegitimate son, the evil Mordred, and the disclosure of the the queen's infidelity. They did not appreciate the clash in styles, an enjoyable lighthearted first act overtaken by an overly dramatic second act. Hart remedied its faults by tightening the book and eliminating several - though lovely – songs, including Fie on Goodness!, Take Me to the Fair, and Before I Gaze at You Again. The show's hit status was also elevated by its best-selling cast recording, one of the most pleasing ever produced. An appearance by Julie Andrews and Richard Burton on the Ed Sullivan Show, singing Camelot and What Do the Simple Folk Do?, in full costume, helped the box-office sales, too.

Camelot, the motion picture, has its strengths, primarily perhaps the best adaptation of any Broadway score in the history of motion pictures. Musical Director Alfred Newman and his choral associate, Ken Darby, richly deserved their Academy Awards for their work. The costume, production design and art direction are also Oscar worthy. Beyond that, let there be silence.

Richard Harris overacts. Mon Dieu, what a ham! He sings acceptably, but overdoes the lyrics considerably with his e-nun-ci-a-tion, especially the title song. As others have noted, the blue eye shadow and ugly wig do not help. Visuals aside, his Arthur renders on the effeminate.

Franco Nero is handsome but can't act his way out of a paper bag. Stiff and wooden, his Italian accent is incongruous with his dubbed musical vocals.

Vanessa Redgrave, of the three co-stars, comes off best. Although not a true singer, her songs are passable. Her acting is laudable. She is beautiful, convincingly regal and winning in most her scenes. Her reaction to Lance's bringing the knight back to life is touching and real. She must have ignored direction from the director at times (thankfully for us), otherwise she would not have been as effective.

Under the sledgehammer, heavy handed direction by Joshua Logan, this film fails on every dramatic level. He has his actors amplify every single syllable and nuance – in extreme close up! Did he not watch his own daily rushes during filming? This is the same director who managed to wreck South Pacific (1958) and would go on to ruin another musical, Lerner and Loewe's Paint Your Wagon (1969). It was Logan – not Warner –who remarked, "Can you see two men and two countries going to war over Julie Andrews?"

In general I did like "Camelot" but there are a number of flaws that do let down what could have been a spectacular film to what is now a interesting but somewhat mediocre one. Well, starting with the positives, it is sumptuously filmed, with stunning cinematography and lush costumes and sets. The music score is marvellous, beautiful, dramatic, moving, haunting and lots more. Most of the performances are well done, particularly David Hemmings as Mordred who is deliciously devious and even detestable. And it was nice to see the late Lionel Jeffries as King Pellinore. The story is tragic and inspiring, the ending is moving and the dialogue is good. However, the film does drag a lot, not only because the pace is disappointingly pedestrian, but Joshua Logan's direction is very stodgy. Also, while Gene Merlino provided the singing voice of Lancelot beautifully, I personally didn't find the singing that great. Richard Harris and Vanessa Redgrave act convincingly as Arthur and Guinevere, but their singing is flat mostly. As Lancelot Franco Nero is wooden at best, handsome yes, but wooden. All in all, worth watching, but with more secure pacing and a perhaps better director, no offence to Joshua Logan, this could've been better. 6/10 Bethany Cox

The legend of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table has endured for centuries, and has inspired many movies. One of them is the musical "Camelot," based on the stage production by Lerner and Loewe. Richard Harris stars as King Arthur, with Vanessa Redgrave as Queen Guinevere and Franco Nero as Sir Lancelot. The story follows the classic legend, Arthur creating the perfect land of Camelot, but suffering betrayal by his queen and favorite knight. The eyes are presented with a lavish sight of dazzling scenery, lush locations and beautiful costumes. There are memorable songs, such as "If Ever I Should Leave You," "What Do the Simple Folk Do?" and of course, "Camelot." This epic offers a lot for both the eyes and the ears.